PURPOSE: The conventional diagnostic techniques used to assess recurrence of colorectal cancer (CRCR) often yield unspecific findings. Integrated FDG-PET/CT seems to offer promise for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the value of FDG-PET and PET/CT in the detection of CRCR subsequent to colonic resection or rectal amputation. METHODS: The population for this retrospective study comprised 84 patients with suspected CRCR. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET and PET/CT were calculated for (a) intra-abdominal extrahepatic recurrences, (b) extra-abdominal and/or hepatic recurrences and (c) all recurrences, and tumour marker levels were analysed. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of PET in detecting intra-abdominal extrahepatic CRCR were 82%, 88% and 86%, respectively, compared with 88%, 94% and 92%, respectively, for PET/CT. The corresponding figures for detection of extra-abdominal and/or hepatic CRCR were 74%, 88% and 85% for PET and 95%, 100% and 99% for PET/CT. Considering the entire population, the sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of PET were 80%, 69% and 75%, respectively, compared with 89%, 92% and 90%, respectively, for PET/CT. FDG-PET/CT examination correctly detected 40 out of a total of 45 patients with CRCR. Two of five patients with falsely negative FDG-PET/CT findings had local microscopic recurrences and one had miliary liver metastases. Of 39 patients without CRCR, three showed false positive FDG-PET/CT results. Two of these cases were due to increased accumulation in inflammatory foci in the bowel wall, while one was due to haemorrhaging into the adrenal gland. CONCLUSION: FDG-PET/CT appears to be a very promising method for distinguishing a viable tumour from fibrous changes, thereby avoiding unnecessary laparotomy.
PURPOSE: The conventional diagnostic techniques used to assess recurrence of colorectal cancer (CRCR) often yield unspecific findings. Integrated FDG-PET/CT seems to offer promise for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the value of FDG-PET and PET/CT in the detection of CRCR subsequent to colonic resection or rectal amputation. METHODS: The population for this retrospective study comprised 84 patients with suspected CRCR. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of PET and PET/CT were calculated for (a) intra-abdominal extrahepatic recurrences, (b) extra-abdominal and/or hepatic recurrences and (c) all recurrences, and tumour marker levels were analysed. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of PET in detecting intra-abdominal extrahepatic CRCR were 82%, 88% and 86%, respectively, compared with 88%, 94% and 92%, respectively, for PET/CT. The corresponding figures for detection of extra-abdominal and/or hepatic CRCR were 74%, 88% and 85% for PET and 95%, 100% and 99% for PET/CT. Considering the entire population, the sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of PET were 80%, 69% and 75%, respectively, compared with 89%, 92% and 90%, respectively, for PET/CT. FDG-PET/CT examination correctly detected 40 out of a total of 45 patients with CRCR. Two of five patients with falsely negative FDG-PET/CT findings had local microscopic recurrences and one had miliary liver metastases. Of 39 patients without CRCR, three showed false positive FDG-PET/CT results. Two of these cases were due to increased accumulation in inflammatory foci in the bowel wall, while one was due to haemorrhaging into the adrenal gland. CONCLUSION:FDG-PET/CT appears to be a very promising method for distinguishing a viable tumour from fibrous changes, thereby avoiding unnecessary laparotomy.
Authors: D Delbeke; J V Vitola; M P Sandler; R C Arildsen; T A Powers; J K Wright; W C Chapman; C W Pinson Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Jong-Ho Kim; Johannes Czernin; Martin S Allen-Auerbach; Benjamin S Halpern; Barbara J Fueger; Joel R Hecht; Osman Ratib; Michael E Phelps; Wolfgang A Weber Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: P Flamen; S Stroobants; E Van Cutsem; P Dupont; G Bormans; N De Vadder; F Penninckx; L Van Hoe; L Mortelmans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V O Chan; J P Das; J F Gerstenmaier; J Geoghegan; R G Gibney; C D Collins; S J Skehan; D E Malone Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2012-03-17 Impact factor: 1.568